Compile-time options (was Re: Forks?) (was Re: Tight VNC)

Illtud Daniel illtud.daniel "at" llgc.org.uk
Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:01:12 +0000


Andrew van der Stock wrote:

> IETF

Great idea - I would support this.

But:

> Anyway, forking code bases is not necessarily bad. Different products for
> different needs works okay (ie Palm code base has different aims to a
> Windows code base (simple features, small and very efficient code size,
> extreme compression needs vs feature rich, object size doesn't really matter
> , speed of display is important). As long as everyone moves to the 5.0
> protocol quickly my security concerns will be assuaged.

And Brian Blevins said:

> As far as AT&T integrating the Tight encoding, I doubt that
> will happen.  They seem to have come to the conclusion that
> hextile achieves a sort of optimum for CPU usage versus
> level of compression.  Of course, a brief comment from
> someone at AT&T would be much preferrable to my musings.

Again, I ask: why aren't all these options and platforms compile-
time options? Is it because of win* people just not having any
concept/experience of this? How about modularizing encoding and
the like, then? Forking isn't always bad, but forking into one
project per binary is madness!

-- 
Illtud Daniel                                 illtud.daniel "at" llgc.org.uk
Uwch Ddadansoddwr Systemau                       Senior Systems Analyst
Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru                  National Library of Wales
Yn siarad drosof fy hun, nid LlGC   -  Speaking personally, not for NLW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------